16 year old executed in Iran

[pritchke]

Religious judge executed 16 year old because of her sharp toung. May he rot in hell.

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”. Source

More... Shock, outrage over execution

[ 08-24-2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Execute the judge, be glad if you don't live in a country where sex is illegal, oh -- and down with fundamentalism.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Execute the judge, be glad if you don't live in a country where sex is illegal, oh -- and down with fundamentalism.

Hear, hear.

Mr big bad judge didn't like to be criticised, so he condemned and took a personal hand in the execution of a 16-year-old girl. Disgusting.

[johnny]

Backwater country, backwater people, backwater culture.... i'm not even surprised to read something like that. A young girl dares to raise her voice against a man ? That calls for a personal jihad with Allah as a whitness.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Execute the judge, be glad if you don't live in a country where sex is illegal, oh -- and down with fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist ISLAM. Not fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pacificism is a good thing. So is fundamentalist mercy or grace. Or fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism or fundamentalist anything that doesn't harm others.

Sheesh. So simple. It RELATIVE to the FUNDAMENTAL beliefs held!!! Down with misunderstanding. Down with ignorant insults. Down with perpetuation of errors on forii.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Execute the judge, be glad if you don't live in a country where sex is illegal, oh -- and down with fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist ISLAM. Not fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pacificism is a good thing. So is fundamentalist mercy or grace. Or fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism or fundamentalist anything that doesn't harm others.

Sheesh. So simple. It RELATIVE to the FUNDAMENTAL beliefs held!!! Down with misunderstanding. Down with ignorant insults. Down with perpetuation of errors on forii. [/QUOTE]Not quite so simple as fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca, Confucianism does not mean Fundamentalist pacificism and at times are as bad or worse than non-pacificism Fundamentalist ISLAM. Generally speaking we refer to Fundamentalist as the violent wackos, the pacifist ones barly register so we don't usally notice them the same way.

[ 08-24-2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

The Fundamentalism Project, directed and edited by Martin E. Marty and Scott Appleby (see bibliography below for publications resultling from this project) > The American Academy of Arts and Sciences funded a multiyear project that brought scholars from around the world together to study Fundamentalism. Ultimately they produced 5 volumes containing almost 8,000 pages of material. Admitting some difficulty with the term, the project opts to use it anyway for a variety of reasons. Essentially, they argue that it is commonly accepted, here to stay, and the best term anyone can come up with for this phenomena. The last chapter of volume 1, Fundamentalisms Observed, discusses the "family resemblances" found in the various chapters. > These family resemblances include: > -religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity; -fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified; -it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point about language -- outsiders cannot understand it); -fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle; -they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle; -they demonize their opposition and are reactionary; -fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress; -they are led by males; -they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power. > The Fundamentalism Project enumerates several more of these "family resemblances" but most are represented in this abbreviated list. > The last several chapters of the final volume, Fundamentalisms Comprehended, attempts to delineate several properties of Fundamentalism with the research of the previous 7,500 pages in mind. Appleby, Emmanuel Sivan, and Gabriel Almond list 5 ideological characteristics and 4 organizational characteristics of fundamentalism. > The Five ideological characteristics are: > -fundamentalists are concerned "first" with the erosion of religion and its proper role in society; -fundamentalism is selective of their tradition and what part of modernity they accept or choose to react against; they embrace some form of Manicheanism (dualism); -fundamentalists stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of revelation; and -they opt for some form of Millennialism or Messianism. > The organizational characteristics include: > -an elect or chosen membership; -sharp group boundaries; -charismatic authoritarian leaders; and -mandated behavioral requirements.

Source

That's what I meant by fundamentalism. So, careful Yorick, calling me out may show your own ignorance. You were at the very least mistaken in thinking I didn't say what I meant.

Additional Reading: Why Fundamentalism is Wrong

Consulting your dictionary would have saved us all some arguing here, Yorick:
See Here.

[ 08-24-2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Stratos]

I see modern Fundamentalism as a product of, and a reaction against the modern secular world that is so dominant today. There have always been fundamentalists movements of various kinds, but I don't think they've been so widespread and obvious as they are today.

What I find interresting about some fundamentalists movements is, while they often rage against the modern society, they are also quick to use the products of said society, such as technology.

[ 08-24-2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Mouse]

Whilst complimenting TL on the links in the above post, I'd just remind you all of the moratorium on religious debates.

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Mouse. I'll watch it. It's a darned difficult topic to stay away from though, especially when trying to analyze social problems causing strife around the world.